|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently working with a Contractor to develop information for volume and pollutant credits for most of the BMPs discussed in this manual. We anticipate this information will incorporated into the Manual by early summer, 2014. Draft versions of this information can be found for the following BMPs.
| + | ==General information== |
| − | *[[Calculating_credits_for_permeable_pavement|Permeable pavement]] | + | *[[Information on pollutant removal by BMPs]] |
| − | *[[Calculating credits for tree trenches and tree boxes|Tree boxes and tree trenches]] | + | *[[Overview of stormwater credits]] |
| − | *[[Calculating credits for green roofs|Green roofs]]
| |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Credits for individual bmps== |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for bioretention]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for green roofs]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for infiltration basin]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for permeable pavement]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for tree trenches and tree boxes]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for stormwater ponds]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for stormwater wetlands]] |
| | + | *[[Calculating credits for sand filter]] |
| | | | |
| − | The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is also working with a Contractor to develop information on using the [[MIDS calculator|Minimal Impact Design Standards calculator]] to calculate credits for volume, phosphorus and total suspended solids. Drafts of that information can be found for the following BMPs.
| + | ==Information on using the [[MIDS calculator|Minimal Impact Design Standards calculator]] to calculate credits for volume, phosphorus and total suspended solids== |
| − | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention BMPs in the MIDS calculator|Bioretention]] | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with no underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator]] |
| − | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using green roofs as a BMP in the MIDS calculator|Green roofs]] | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with an underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator]] |
| − | | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using swale without an underdrain as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using swale with an underdrain as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using swale side slope as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using wet swale as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using sand filter as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using trees as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using trees with an underdrain as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using green roofs as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using permeable pavement BMPs in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using stormwater pond as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using stormwater wetland as a BMP in the MIDS calculator.]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using Other as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using infiltration basin/underground infiltration BMPs in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | + | *[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using Harvest and re-use/cistern as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]] |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Other pages== |
| | The Manual also contains information on models that can be used to calculate credits for volume and pollutants. Information on models is found on the following pages. | | The Manual also contains information on models that can be used to calculate credits for volume and pollutants. Information on models is found on the following pages. |
| | *[[Available stormwater models and selecting a model]] | | *[[Available stormwater models and selecting a model]] |
| | *[[The Simple Method for estimating phosphorus export ]] | | *[[The Simple Method for estimating phosphorus export ]] |
| | + | *The original Manual contained credit information for [[Credits for Better Site design|Better Site Design]]. |
| | | | |
| − | | + | [[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Guidance and information/Pollutant removal and credits]] |
| − | The original Manual contained the following credit information for Better Site Design.
| |
| − | [[Credits for Better Site design]] | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | The Minnesota Stormwater Manual version 1.0 did not contain sufficient information to allow application of pollutant removal effectiveness for TSS and TP across a range of performance levels. Version 1.0 contained average performance numbers and “typical BMP outflow concentrations.” Input from users asked for more detail on how performance data could be applied across a wider range of conditions with more accuracy. The purpose of this version 2.0 addition is to gather more information about system performance, re-define what that actually means, and report on a three-tiered (high, medium, low) method for using the performance data.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Approach==
| |
| − | Several databases and data compilations were reviewed and compared to develop expected performance measures for TSS and TP of the five following categories of BMPs contained in the current Manual: bioretention, filtration, infiltration, stormwater ponds, and stormwater wetlands. The following studies were used:
| |
| − | *International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database: http://www. bmpdatabase.org/index.htm. This project began in 1996 under a cooperative agreement between the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). It now has additional support and funding from the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), ASCE Environmental and Water Resources Institute, Federal Highway Administration, and the American Public Works Association (APWA). Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and GeoSyntec Consultants maintain and operate the database clearinghouse and web page. Data from well screened BMP studies from throughout the world continues to be entered. Data were downloaded from the website in February 2007 and were summarized for this current evaluation. This database will hereafter be referred to as the ASCE/EPA database.
| |
| − | *Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program (SWAMP): http://www.trca.on.ca/water_protection/hydrology/old%20hydrology/stormwater_management/default.asp#swamp. SWAMP operated from 1995 to 2003. This program was an initiative of the Government of Canada’s Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the Municipal Engineer’s Association. This program is attractive to Minnesota because of the attention paid to cold climate conditions. The SWAMP report (SWAMP 2005) summarizes BMP monitoring data, but does not contain raw data. This program will hereafter be referred to as the SWAMP program.
| |
| − | *National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition, March 2000, Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). This report (Winer 2000) summarizes BMP monitoring data, but does not contain raw data. This report will hereafter be referred to as the CWP report.
| |
| − | *The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices: Report prepared by authors from the University of Minnesota and Valparaiso University and published by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) in 2005. This report uses several BMP studies and examines performance relative to costs. This report cited as (Weiss et al. 2005) will be referred to as the Mn/DOT report.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Recommended Performance Measures==
| |
| − | [[File:Ponds TSS influent concentration and percent reduction2.jpg|thumb|300px|alt=graph showing relationship between TSS influent concentration and percent TSS reduction for ponds|<font size=3>Relationship between TSS influent concentration and percent reduction in stormwater ponds. Each point represents the mean value for a single BMP. Percent reduction was calculated with ASCE/EPA database values as follows: (inflow concentration - outflow BMP performance can be evaluated in several ways, the most common of which are pollutant outflow concentration and pollutant percent removal</font size>]]
| |
| − | *Pollutant outflow concentration: expressed simply as the pollutant concentration in the BMP outflow (primary recommended performance measure); this is a measure of the outflow only, not an inflow/outflow comparison.
| |
| − | *Pollutant percent removal (or removal efficiency): expressed as a percent change in either pollutant load (secondary recommended performance measure) or pollutant concentration of the outflow relative to the inflow (not recommended when expressed without a consideration of volume).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Although percent removal is often used in describing the performance of a BMP, it is a biased indicator of BMP performance (Strecker and Quigley 1999, SWAMP 2005). This bias results from the fact that percent removal is usually higher in situations where the inflow concentration is high, and influent concentration and percent removal are often correlated (SWAMP 2005). Judging performance on inflow versus outflow is not recommended as the primary performance indicator for this reason. To illustrate this concept, using concentration data from stormwater ponds from the ASCE/EPA database, at low influent TSS concentrations (less than 100 mg/L), percent removals range from 0% to almost 100% removal (Figure 1). However, at higher influent concentration (greater than 100 mg/L), percent removals are greater than 80% (except for one outlier at approximately 65%). This is because, as a pollutant in stormwater becomes less concentrated, it becomes harder to remove that pollutant, due to the pollutant’s physical and chemical properties and the BMP’s removal mechanisms; there is very little more a BMP can do to improve water quality. The percent removal is highly variable and therefore not the best indicator of performance.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As an example, if the inflow TSS concentration to a BMP is 40 mg/L and the outflow is 20 mg/L (assuming that the flow-through volume remains constant), then the BMP is performing at only 50% removal efficiency, even though the outflow has good water quality. On the other hand, if the inflow TSS concentration is 500 mg/L, and the outflow is 100 mg/L, the BMP is performing at a much higher efficiency, 80%, but the outflow is of poorer water quality than the outflow in the first example.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Since the goal in any BMP installation is the discharge of good quality water, no matter what the inflow concentration, outflow concentration exiting a BMP is a good measure of performance because it indicates the quality of water that will reach downstream water bodies. If percent removal is going to be used as an indicator of performance, the following should be taken into account:
| |
| − | *Percent removal should preferably be load-based as opposed to concentration-based. When percent removal is based solely on concentrations, water volume is ignored, when in fact it could be markedly influencing the performance of the BMP. For example, if a large volume of heavily concentrated pollution is entering a bioretention BMP and much of the water is infiltrating into the ground, the overall load will be greatly reduced, yet not show up as such if the outflow concentration remains high.
| |
| − | *Inflow concentration should be examined and considered in the analysis. If inflow concentration is already quite low, and if pollutant percent removal is also low, the low percent removal may partly be due to the fact that additional pollutant removal is not currently technologically possible, a concept known as the “irreducible concentration.” Another important factor that must be incorporated into every BMP performance assessment is the limitation to only water that actually flows into and through the treatment system. Any flow that exceeds the design specifications for the BMP should be by-passed or diverted and not included in the treatment efficiency calculations. Instead, this flow should be routed to a receiving water as “untreated” or preferably routed to another BMP for subsequent treatment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Percent removal should preferably be load-based as opposed to concentration-based. When percent removal is based solely on concentrations, water volume is ignored, when in fact it could be markedly influencing the performance of the BMP. For example, if a large volume of heavily concentrated pollution is entering a bioretention BMP and much of the water is infiltrating into the ground, the overall load will be greatly reduced, yet not show up as such if the outflow concentration remains high.
| |
| − | *Inflow concentration should be examined and considered in the analysis. If inflow concentration is already quite low, and if pollutant percent removal is also low, the low percent removal may partly be due to the fact that additional pollutant removal is not currently technologically possible, a concept known as the “irreducible concentration.” Another important factor that must be incorporated into every BMP performance assessment is the limitation to only water that actually flows into and through the treatment system. Any flow that exceeds the design specifications for the BMP should be by-passed or diverted and not included in the treatment efficiency calculations. Instead, this flow should be routed to a receiving water as “untreated” or preferably routed to another BMP for subsequent treatment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ===BMP Performance===
| |
| − | This Manual update is intended to address the five structural BMPs included in Chapter 12 of version 1.0; these are bioretention, filtration, infiltration, stormwater ponds and constructed wetlands. The majority of the BMP performance data was taken from the ASCE/EPA database, the CWP report, and the Mn/DOT report. These studies were comprehensive data gathering efforts and analyses with a high level of quality control. However, the data are not all directly comparable due to different statistics being presented in the different sources. Medians and interquartile ranges of outflow concentrations were available in the ASCE/EPA database, and percent reductions (based on event mean concentrations) were calculated using the database. In the CWP report, the medians were presented in tables, but the interquartile ranges were estimated from graphic presentations of the data. Percent removal data in the CWP report are based on either load or concentration, but that distinction for each BMP was not noted. The Mn/DOT study only reported means. When possible, data for outflow concentration or percent load removal are presented as medians and interquartile ranges in this Issue Paper. In the percent removal data, the 75th percentile represents the high tier of BMP performance, the median represents the middle tier, and the 25th percentile represents the low tier (Figure 2). The opposite is true for the outflow concentration data, in that the 25th percentile represents the high tier of expected BMP performance, since low outflow concentration suggests high performance, and high outflow concentration suggests low performance (Figure 2).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The primary method to assess performance is recommended to be the outflow concentrationleaving from a particular BMP, with percent load reduction as a secondary recommended approach. Graphics and tables representing each of these approaches follow. Data from the various sources differed slightly, although they followed similar patterns (Figures 3 through 6). The comparisons presented here are from a visual examination of the data; they do not represent statistically significant differences among the groups, which was not possible to test due to the fact that we did not have all of the raw data. Data from bioretention devices and infiltration practices are not included in the following figures due to a lack of evaluation data, but they are discussed later in the Issue Paper.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Median TSS outflow concentrations ranged from 13 to 26 mg/L, and with median/mean percent removals ranging from 54% to 88% (Figures 3 and 4). The lowest TSS outflow concentration and highest percent removal were achieved by media filters, at approximately 10 mg/L and 85%, respectively (Figures 3 and 4). Percent removal in stormwater ponds was similar to that in media filters, but the interquartile range was larger in the pond data. TSS percent removal in grass filters differed between the CWP and ASCE/EPA databases, with median percent removals at 81% and 54%, respectively, and with interquartile ranges not overlapping at all (Figure 4). However, the TSS interquartile ranges of the two databases showed large overlap in the outflow concentration data (Figure 3). Because of the number of studies and scrutiny placed on the character of the data collection, the ASCE/EPA database should be considered preferentially if a user wonders which value to rely upon more.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Grass filters performed the poorest among the BMP categories for TP treatment, with median outflow concentrations ranging from 0.19 to 0.29 mg/L, and median/mean percent removals ranging from -35% to 41% (Figures 5 and 6). Although grass filters do not show particularly good pollutant removal, they do have their place as a fairly effective BMP in certain conditions for volume reduction (see Chapter 12-FIL, Section VII).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following sections present the performance data from Figures 3 through 6 for each BMP category as a series of tables. The first table in each section presents the outflow concentrations and the second presents the percent removals. A diagram then presents the design elements that most influence BMP performance in that category.
| |
| − | | |
| − | When using these data to estimate the performance of a specific BMP, the estimate should be selected based on the design elements figures. Figures 7-12 are each adapted from an as yet unpublished Design Point Method developed by CWP, combined with the outflow concentration and percent removal tables (Tables 1-8). If the installation shows neither positive nor negative elements as listed in the design elements figures, the median (50th percentile) should be used.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For example, in a stormwater pond, the outflow TSS concentration that could be expected under most conditions would be about 15 mg/L. If there are positive design elements, it would be lowered to approximately 11 mg/L, and if there were negative design elements, the expected outflow concentration would be raised to approximately 30 mg/L.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Data from the Mn/DOT report are presented in these tables, even though they present only means and not interquartile ranges. The Mn/DOT study incorporated some of the same studies that the CWP database includes; it is therefore presented simply to show its value compared to the currently reported ASCE/EPA and CWP values.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Bioretention===
| |
| − | Performance data from bioretention devices are less available than data for the other BMP types. Since inflow often does not enter bioretention devices through a channel, it is difficult to monitor. More importantly, bioretention devices are often designed to infiltrate stormwater, and therefore do not always overflow.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In a USGS study on the effects on water quality of rain gardens in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, two of the five studied rain gardens did not overflow at all during the study’s time period (Tornes 2005) and therefore retained all of the incoming TSS and TP loads. At sites where overflow did occur, the pollutant concentrations in the outflow (Table 9) were generally lower than the concentrations in the inflow. However, since volumes were not monitored, it was not possible to estimate what percent of the pollutant loads were retained. TSS was not monitored in that study, and TSS data for bioretention devices are not included in the CWP report; therefore only TP values are presented here.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In a study on the Burnsville rain gardens in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area, there was an 82% reduction in annual stormwater runoff over a two-year monitoring period, with a greater than 95% reduction in volume for many storms (Yetka and Leuthold 2005). Other local data, from the H.B. Fuller Company bioretention system, show a 73% reduction in stormwater volume, a 94% reduction in particulates, and a 70% reduction in TP. However, the soluble fraction of phosphorus in the runoff increased by 70% (Langer 1997).
| |
| − | | |
| − | Interpretation of the performance data presented here for bioretention is somewhat inconclusive due to the methods used and the low number of documented studies. Despite the relatively low TP percent removal value presented (65%), observational accounts suggest that bioretention devices are highly effective at removing TSS and TP loads, since they often infiltrate the majority of the volume of stormwater runoff events. Discretion is suggested on whether to increase this value based upon observations that validate high infiltration for the design event.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Infiltration===
| |
| − | Due to similar difficulties as those that exist with monitoring bioretention systems, there are few data available demonstrating the load reductions or outflow concentrations of larger-scale infiltration practices such as infiltration trenches. Few sampling programs collect infiltrating water that flows through an infiltration system.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For properly designed, operated, and maintained infiltration systems, all water routed into them should be “removed” from stormwater flow, resulting in 100% efficiency relative to volume and pollutant reduction. For this reason, performance tables similar to those above would only reflect this performance. This logic assumes that stormwater is the beneficiary of any infiltration system, but ignores the fact that pollution, if any remains after the internal workings of the infiltration BMP itself (see Chapter 12-INFIL), is being transferred into the shallow groundwater system. Good monitoring data on the groundwater impact of infiltrating stormwater are rare, but there are efforts underway today to document this, so future Manual revisions should be able to include some data updates.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Properly designed infiltration systems (see Chapter 12-INFIL) will accommodate a design volume based on the required water quality volume. Excess water must be by-passed and diverted to another BMP so that the design infiltration occurs within 48 hours if under state regulation, or generally within 72 hours under certain local and watershed regulations. In no case should the by-passed volume be included in the pollutant removal calculation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Data that are reported in performance literature for infiltration systems, unless reporting 100% effectiveness for surface water or documenting outflow water downward, are not accurately representing behavior, or are representing the excess flow (overflow) from a system. The performance percentages and effluent concentrations reported in the Version 1.1 Manual will be removed for this reason and replaced at a future date to better reflect the movement of surface water pollutants into the groundwater system. Design specifications (see Chapter 12-INFIL) should prevent putting excess water beyond that which will infiltrate within the given timeframe.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Any excess should be diverted away from the infiltration system and reported as inflow to another treatment device.
| |
| − | Both Chapter 12-INFIL and Chapter 13 address the necessity of careful use of infiltration BMPs to make sure they are not transporting highly loaded or toxic contaminants into the groundwater system. These chapters address the pollution remediation processes at work in infiltration systems to reduce or totally remove pollutants that move through them. However, extreme caution must be exercised and serious planning undertaken to assure that no highly contaminating material is routed into these BMPs. Of particular concern are toxic organics (gasoline, solvents) and high levels of chloride.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Other Factors Influencing Performance==
| |
| − | Even though the ASCE/EPA database is the most comprehensive collection of BMP performance data, there are not enough data points in the database to statistically examine the effect that design parameters have on BMP performance (ASCE/EPA 2000). The design parameters listed in the BMP performance figures are derived from best professional judgment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are many other factors that affect the performance of BMPs that have not been discussed in the previous sections. There is little in-depth statistical analysis that can be done for these other factors due to the lack of reported information on them. Nevertheless, it can be stated with certainty that they do have an impact on BMP performance and should, therefore, be considered when designing a practice. A discussion of these related factors follows. Manual users are urged to review the referenced chapters for the information needed.
| |
| − | ===The effects of geographic location===
| |
| − | Chapter 2 and Appendix A go into detail on the geographic variation within Minnesota and the impact that this has on stormwater behavior and BMP selection. These parts of the Manual present information on such variables as soil, geology, temperature, precipitation and land use.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Watershed configuration===
| |
| − | Watershed configuration factors such as size, slope, shape and depth to bedrock/water table are presented in the Chapter 12 BMP design sheets for each of the five BMPs considered in detail, as well as the Fact Sheets that summarize BMPs in less detail.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Uncertainty of hydrologic measurements===
| |
| − | The proper design, installation and operation of BMPs rely on good hydrologic information for the drainage area within which the BMP occurs. Such factors as initial losses due to landscape retention, variable runoff coefficients, location of rainfall data recorders and extent of connected imperviousness have a major impact on BMP effectiveness. Chapter 3 contains information and internal links within the Manual that describe the importance of these factors.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===BMP design criteria===
| |
| − | Variations in the design specifics of an installed BMP can vary substantially from one location or jurisdiction to another. The information presented in this Manual attempts to describe methods to assess those variations, but in the end the designer will need to account for variation and customize the application. Among many factors to consider in typical BMP implementation are:
| |
| − | *Ratio of permanent and temporary storage to drainage area
| |
| − | *Storage configuration
| |
| − | *Drawdown time
| |
| − | *Length-to-width and bathymetric ratios
| |
| − | *Soil permeability
| |
| − | | |
| − | Chapter 12 of the Manual discusses the specifics of these factors as they apply to the featured BMPs.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===BMP maintenance===
| |
| − | The most common failures that occur with BMPs happen when maintenance is ignored. Each of the Chapter 12 discussions of BMPs contains information on maintenance. Appendix D also contains maintenance checklists for the major BMPs covered in Chapter 12.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Climate===
| |
| − | Chapter 9 and several narratives scattered throughout the Manual describe the particular issues that arise in Minnesota because of the large variation experienced in seasonality and temperature. Minnesota has the largest difference between summer maximum temperature and winter minimum temperature of any state in the U.S. This variation and the substantial precipitation difference from west to east present a wide array of design considerations that must be incorporated into any BMP. Chapter 2 provides some insight and further information links to use in BMP selection and design.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | *ASCE/EPA Database. International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database: http://www.bmpdatabase.org/index.htm.
| |
| − | *ASCE/EPA 2000. Determining Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice Removal Efficiencies EPA Assistance Agreement Number CX 824555-01-Task 3.4.
| |
| − | *Langer, R. 1997. 1997 Twin Cities Water Quality Initiative Grant Report. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District.
| |
| − | *Schueler, T. 1996. Irreducible Pollutant Concentrations Discharged from Stormwater Practices. Article 65: Technical Note #75 from Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):369-372. Center for Watershed Protection.
| |
| − | *Strecker, E, and M. Quigley. 1999. Development of Performance Measures, Task 3.a – Technical Memorandum: Determining Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Removal Efficiencies. Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Urban Water Resources Research Council (UWRRC) of ASCE, and Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency.
| |
| − | *SWAMP (Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program) 2005. Synthesis of Monitoring Studies Conducted Under the Stormwater Assessment Monitoring and Performance Program. Prepared for Great Lakes Sustainability Fund of the Government of Canada, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Municipal Engineers Association of Ontario, and Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
| |
| − | *Tornes, L. 2005. Effects of Rain Gardens on the Quality of Water in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area of Minnesota, 2002-04. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5189.
| |
| − | *Yetka, L. and K. Leuthold. 2005. Burnsville Rainwater Garden Retrofit Project. Presentation at 2005 Annual Minnesota Erosion Control Association Conference.
| |
| − | *Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver, and A.J. Erickson. 2005. The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
| |
| − | *Winer, R. 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition. Center for Watershed Protection, for EPA Office of Science and Technology.
| |
| − | -->
| |
